- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 10:39:41 +0200
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 10:17:44AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: (...) > I'm not seeing anything explicitly forbidding to send this sequence. I'm > obviously not interested in doing it, but I found it while trying to use > the stream state to know what I have to do when getting back to processing > a stream, and found that each time I adapted my model differently, I broke > it another way. I'm thinking about adding sub-states to deal with this here, > but I wanted to check if 1) I'm overlooking something (or am completely > stupid) and 2) if some implementations sticking strictly to the specified > state machine could possibly face issues when dealing with such sequences. Finally I found that "8.1 HTTP Req/Resp Exchange" more or less addresses it by remining a normal sequence though without being very strict on what to do when it doesn't match (lack of HEADERS frame not mentionned for example). I don't have much better to propose for now however. Also I think I found a typo here in 8.1 : An endpoint that receives a HEADERS frame without the END_STREAM flag set after receiving a final (non- informational) status code MUST treat the corresponding request or response as malformed (Section 8.1.2.6). I think it should use s/END_STREAM/END_HEADERS/ given that DATA frames are still allowed here. I can file an errata if confirmed. Willy
Received on Friday, 21 July 2017 08:40:05 UTC